Vol. 382 No. 4
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £25,664,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1988, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office, including certain grants-in-aid.
The annual debate on the Estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs presents a useful opportunity for us to review the broad spectrum of issues which arise in our dealings with the rest of the world. While opportunities to debate individual questions arise fairly regularly — there was a discussion of the Cecchini report on the European Community's Internal Market a few weeks ago, for example — it is only during consideration of the Estimates that there is the possibility of a general debate in which Deputies can express views on any aspect of foreign policy that concerns them.
Fortunately, I do not think there is much dispute in this House and in the country about our main foreign policy concerns and interests and the principles on which they are based: (1) We believe that our interests, and those of all other states, are best served by respect for the rule of law in international affairs; (2) Our membership of the European Community is of central importance in our approach to international affairs. We are committed to the Community enterprise of economic integration and political co-operation directed towards European Union; (3) We strongly believe in and support the United Nations system; (4) We want to see a continuation of the improvement in relations between East and West, further progress in arms control and disarmament and negotiated solutions to regional conflicts; (5) We look to eventual achievement of the goal of general and complete disarmament set by the United Nations nearly 30 years ago. We are encouraged in particular by the commitment of the United States and the Soviet Union to pursue, as the first priority, the goal of the reduction of nuclear weapons and, ultimately, their elimination. (6) We will maintain our policy of military neutrality; (7) We uphold the values of Western liberal democracy and respect for human rights; (8) We are committed to the peaceful reunification of our country by consent; (9) We are determined to protect the interests of our citizens abroad, including our emigrants in Britain, the United States and elsewhere; (10) We are intent on maintaining conditions favourable to international trade, investment and tourism; (11) Within the limits of our resources we are determined to make a commitment in solidarity to help developing countries.
It is important to have a general national understanding on the principles on which our foreign policy is based. The day-to-day application of these principles to concrete international issues is what the conduct of foreign policy is all about. In many cases the foreign policy issues we face will be looked at in the context of the close co-operation with our neighbours and partners which Community membership and participation in European political co-operation entail.
In the case of those many foreign policy questions that fall to be considered in the first instance in the framework of our Community membership, our foreign policy aims are achieved, in co-operation with our partners, through the effective taking into account of the Irish point of view in the determination of Community policy or of Twelve joint positions in EPC.
I would now like to refer to the main issues requiring our attention at the moment. The problems of Northern Ireland have remained at the forefront of the Government's concern over the past year. The atrocities of the past year, and indeed of the past few days in Northern Ireland, have deeply saddened all of us. The Taoiseach has spoken for all of us in his condemnation of these terrible atrocities. Our most heartfelt sympathy goes to the family and friends of all the victims of violence. It goes without saying that the bomb and the bullet can have no part to play in the achievement of political progress. We condemn violence unequivocally; it is not only horrific in itself but counter-productive in terms of the stated aims of its perpetrators.
The Government believe that a lasting solution to the Northern Ireland problem, leading to peace, reconciliation and stability, can only be found through the Anglo-Irish framework established in 1980. The Government are using in full — actively and imaginatively — the mechanisms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of November 1985 to bring about reforms and improvements in Northern Ireland. The Intergovernmental Conference has been meeting regularly throughout the year and the Joint Secretariat in Belfast continues to operate fully, performing effectively the functions it was designed to accomplish.
In implementing the agreement the Government have sought to broaden the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference while continuing to press for progress on those items which had dominated the attention of the Conference from the outset. We have forthrightly put forward views and proposals as provided for in the agreement.
Equal access to job opportunities may be regarded as the touchstone of a fair society. It is arguable that, more than any other single factor, it was the long experience of discrimination in employment which added most to the alienation of Nationalists in Northern Ireland. That legacy of discrimination can only be overcome by a vigorous and activist approach which will hold realistic promise of change. An essential part of such an approach is a clear commitment to affirmative action programmes specifically designed to ensure a more equitable distribution of job opportunities. The fair employment issue has been among those which has been most actively on the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference since this Government assumed office.
The Government continue to encourage the stimulation of North-South economic co-operation especially for projects likely to increase employment possibilities in both parts of Ireland. The International Fund for Ireland has a special role to play in this area and we are grateful to all those who contribute to it. I am pleased to be able to report, following detailed discussions in the Conference, on a recent joint Irish and British approach to the European Community and we are gratified by indications that the Community may now be favourably disposed to contributing to the fund.
Tackling the economic wasteland of west Belfast is, in our view, another priority for the Intergovernmental Conference. In our contacts with the British side, through the Conference and the Secretariat, we continue to insist on the need to ensure that the security forces and the administration of justice in Northern Ireland are such that they can command the support of both communities. We are encouraged in this regard by the emphasis in the Joint Statement of the Intergovernmental Conference of 25 March on giving a new impetus to the programme of work in this area. That impetus is recognised by both Governments as especially required in the light of the dreadful events which occurred in the early part of the year.
The Government in particular attached priority to finding measures which will deal effectively with the problems which arise from everyday contact between the ordinary person and the security forces in Northern Ireland. The most frequent complaints which come to my Department from Nationalists in Northern Ireland concern harassment by members of the security forces. This is a difficult and longstanding issue and one not easy to resolve but I can assure the House that the Government are using the Anglo-Irish Conference and Secretariat to the fulliest extent in our efforts to control the problem and to deal with it.
Extradition according to law is an important element in the efforts of civilised countries to ensure their security. Issues which arose concerning arrangements by the British authorities to meet the provisions of present Irish legislation have now been resolved. Despite the difficulties which arose in a specific case earlier this week, I believe that extradition requests will now be dealt with in a manner which contributes to security while protecting the legitimate rights of the citizen.
In the security area, we have two priority objectives: (1) the protection of the security of this State and (2) the protection, to the utmost of our ability, of the interests and security of all the people of Northern Ireland. It is clearly in the interest of all of us living on this island that security co-operation be as effective as possible.
The Anglo-Irish relationship is both a very close and a very complex one. The state of the relationship at any given time tends to be very significantly influenced by developments in Northern Ireland but there is also a series of issues which may be primarily regarded as East-West rather than North-South ones. Among the issues affecting Anglo-Irish relations over the past year were the Birmingham Six trial and its outcome, continuing concern about the Guildford Four and Maguire cases, and the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We will continue our discussions with the British authorities on the Birmingham Six and other cases as well as on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
In an eloquent and perceptive speech on Anglo-Irish relations on 22 April, Sir Geoffrey Howe spoke of the multiple ties which bind our two countries and of the responsibility of both Governments to tackle the very difficult problems which confront them. It is our wish also that Anglo-Irish relations should be as positive and productive as possible and that the problems which arise in the relationship should be resolved in a timely and constructive way.
Currently there are signs that a process of reflection and re-examination of issues is going on at many levels and in many quarters within Northern Ireland. I am hopeful that this process will lead to positive and concrete results. For the Government's part, the Taoiseach has made clear on a number of occasions that he is willing to engage in dialogue with any parties which have renounced the use of violence and that, in particular, he would welcome hearing at first hand, and without preconditions, the views of the Unionist community.
Turning to the Irish abroad may I congratulate the Irish team and their management most sincerely on their achievements in the European Championship. In particular I might congratulate the 15,000 or so Irish supporters whose conduct has been a credit to themselves and their country. These merry, jovial ambassadors and their enthusiasm have enhanced the good name of Ireland. I wish them well for the remainder of the championship.
My Department have been active on the emigration issue over the past year, in particular in the United States where the status of many of our recent emigrants is unclear or uncertain.
The Government's policy has two main strands. In the first place we have encouraged moves for legislative reform in the United States. The Government are hopeful that reforms will be enacted this year that will improve substantially the situation of those of our citizens who wish to live and work legally in the United States.
The second major strand in our policy is in the welfare and advisory area. I can say that the harnessing of the dedicated expertise and energies of the local immigration groups in the United States is already bearing fruit.
The Government have also been active in monitoring emigration trends in other areas of importance to our young emigrants. A grant of IR£250,000 was made available to the DÍON Committee at the embassy in London to supplement the efforts being made by various social welfare bodies working among our emigrants in Britain which is, as before, attracting most of those who emigrate. Our embassies in Canberra and Ottawa and in the countries of the EC are also monitoring the position in their countries and providing advice to newly arrived immigrants when called upon to do so.
Following his return from the United States in April, the Taoiseach decided to improve the co-ordination of the activities of Departments here at home involved in emigration matters. A special interdepartmental committee has been set up under the aegis of my Department to do this.
With the coming into force of the Single European Act on 1 July 1987 the Community took as significant a step forward as has been taken on any occasion since the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. After the Single European Act came into force attention focused mainly on the Commission proposals — the Delors Plan aptly entitled Making a success of the Single Act— which represented the blueprint for the future economic regeneration of the Community. It was this package of proposals which provided the focus for the lengthy and complex negotiations which culminated in agreement at the Brussels European Council on 11-12 February last.
This outcome of the European Council reflects acceptance by our Community partners of the need to ensure that progress towards the internal market is paralleled by progress on cohesion.
The European Council agreed an overall expansion of the Community's funding sufficient to implement the new policies introduced by the Single Act. The Community's finances have thus been placed on a sound footing in the medium term. The budgetary wrangles which have hamstrung the implementation of agreed policies in recent years can be put behind us. The recent adoption of a Community Budget for 1988 is a welcome indication of progress in this regard.
The agreement on agriculture stabilisers reached at the European Council represents the culmination of the process or reform of the common agricultural policy which has been underway for some years. While the process of reform has entailed painful decisions for most member states, including Ireland it was necessary in order to ensure that the long-term viability of the common agricultural policy was secured.
The decisions taken at the European Council provide a stable and adequately-financed basis for the effective future operation of the CAP. The Government are determined that the CAP should continue to serve its fundamental objectives, in particular the safeguarding of family farm incomes. We will actively seek to ensure that it also provides a suitable framework for the further development of agriculture and of our food industry.
Community assistance to the less developed regions is of major importance to Ireland. This assistance has made an important contribution to the economic and social development of the country and to the living standards of our people. It has helped us in our continuing efforts to close the gap between Ireland and the more prosperous member states.
Community commitment to narrowing that gap was given a new impetus in the Single European Act in that the policy of cohesion for the first time was given Treaty status.
The main thrust of the Commission's proposals, particularly those relating to reform of the Structural Funds, was endorsed at the Brussels council where it was decided that the resources available for the three structural funds would increase from £7 billion ECUs in 1987 to £14 billion ECUs in 1993. The European Council in an effort to concentrate the funds where they are most needed. decided that the contribution to the less developed regions would be doubled by 1992 and that a special effort would be made for the least prosperous regions which will include Ireland. This outcome was welcomed by Ireland as we had been one of the strongest supporters of the Commission's proposals in the negotiations leading up to the European Council.
Negotiations continue on the precise details of the new arrangements and are now virtually completed. We have, at all stages during the negotiations, made every effort to ensure that adequate funding will be available during the coming years to make an effective contribution to the structural needs of our economy.
Agreement on the major reform of its finances and on the adequate funding of the Structural Funds has provided the Community with the necessary framework within which to concentrate its attention on the great objective of the completion of the internal market by 1992, as outlined in the Single Act. The Government are fully committed to the achievement of this objective. We look forward to the increased opportunities it will bring for Irish business.
In working for the early achievement of the internal market, with all the benefits it involves, the Government are also aware of the challenges it will create for Irish industry. The Government are thus working to soften the impact of the Commission's proposals on sectors of particular sensitivity for Ireland such as the insurance industry and tax harmonisation.
More broadly, the Government are concerned to ensure also that the achievement of the Single Market does not result in disproportionate gains for the more prosperous central regions of the Community.
The Government are determined to ensure that Irish business is fully aware of both the opportunities and the challenges posed by the impending completion of the interal market. To that end. The Government will be launching, on 4 July, a major public information and awareness campaign, designed to make both business and the general public aware of the implications of 1992.
One of the most encouraging aspects of our economic performance last year has been the growth of our exports. They exceeded £1 billion in value for the first time ever, and the likelihood is that that performance will be bettered this year. In fact, the surplus generated on our exports has been instrumental in our achieving a surplus in the balance of payments for the first time since 1967. This has been a remarkable achievement. The Government's strategy is calculated to enable our exporters to maintain the momentum they have built up and to develop their markets abroad.
As I have mentioned, the Single European Act came into force on 1 July last year, following ratification by all the member states. It has not changed the process of European political co-operation or the nature of our involvement in it. In EPC, the member states, operating on the basis of consensus, exchange information, consult together and seek to adopt common positions and to take joint action in the foreign policy field.
The promotion of a vigorous and effective United Nations is a central element in the Government's foreign policy. We welcome recent indications of a renewed interest on the part of UN member states in seeing the organisation fulfil its role as the main international forum where the most important issues are addressed. We have seen recently in the case of Afghanistan the positive results achieved by patient diplomacy conducted under United Nations auspices. In today's interdependent world many of the problems which we face transcend national frontiers and can only be resolved by effective action on a global basis. The work of the United Nations in such diverse areas as the resolution of regional conflicts, the fight against hunger in Africa, the protection of our environment and the battle against disease, indicates the absolute need for a universal institution through which our individual efforts can be channelled and co-ordinated.
One of the most important services provided by the United Nations to the international community is that rendered by the UN peace-keeping and observer forces. Ireland has a proud record of service in this area. It is a tribute to the standing of this country in the peace-keeping area, and in particular to the high esteem in which our Defence Forces are held within the UN, that we have been invited to participate in the new military inspection teams established on foot of the Geneva agreement concerning Afghanistan. Five Irish officers are at present serving as part of this force in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have no doubt that they will carry out their duties with their customary skill and professionalism. We pay tribute also to Irish personnel serving with other UN forces: in Cyprus, on the India-Pakistan border and at various places in the Middle East, especially those with UNIFIL, our main contribution to UN peace-keeping at present.
We remain concerned at the conditions under which UNIFIL is obliged to operate. The Government have made clear at the United Nations, as well as in direct contacts with the Israeli authorities, the importance they attach to ensuring a more satisfactory position in this area and the unacceptability of any action which threatens the safety of our personnel.
The Government will continue to press for an improvement in the financial position of UNIFIL. We look to all member states to honour their obligations in regard to the financing of this Force and thereby ensure that it can continue to play its important role.
The past year has witnessed significant and welcome developments in the relationship between the superpowers. We are encouraged by the comprehensive nature of the dialogue now taking place and the opportunities it offers for the easing of tensions and the enhancement of international peace and security. The Government also attach great importance to the achievement of progress in disarmament at the multilateral level. As an earnest of the importance we attach to the role of the UN in this area, Ireland's keynote speech to the current third special session on disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly currently taking place in New York was delivered by the Taoiseach. My Department have overall responsibility for co-ordination of official development assistance (ODA).
The largest item is the bilateral aid fund which provides for the central Bilateral Assistance Programme (BAP) run by my Department. The allocation of £10 million for 1988 represents a significant reduction on the 1987 level of £14 million, a reduction necessitated by Ireland's current budgetary difficulties which have forced the Government to embark on a programme of wide-ranging expenditure cuts affecting all sectors and Departments. However, I can assure this House that the full range of programmes operated under the BAP has been maintained into 1988, albeit at a lower level of activity given the scaling down of resources. A basic programme of assistance to our priority and partner countries is being maintained and all of our commitments are being met.
Having visited Tanzania and Lesotho earlier this year I can confirm the standing of our Bilateral Aid Programme as a highly valued, high quality and effective mode of assistance. Despite the small scale of our aid we are making a serious impact on the problems our projects are designed to tackle.
I have outlined the main issues facing this country in the realm of foreign policy and the positions which the Government have taken and will continue to take on these issues. At a time of interesting developments on the world scene, many of which are, thankfully promising for the world as a whole, Ireland's foreign policy is one that is based on firm principles. We can make our contribution to internationl harmony by ensuring that the management of our international relations continues to be guided by these principles.
I commend the Estimate to the House.
I have to repeat a point I made last year, a point that virtually every speaker has made in this House during Estimates debates for as long as I have been involved in Foreign Affairs, that is, the inadequacy of the discussions on foreign affairs that we have in Dáil Éireann. We are now going to debate the Estimate, which in terms of the overall budget is quite small but in terms of its importance to this country and its future is extremely large, in a matter of three hours with a contribution from each speaker of only 15 minutes, which is totally inadequate and will allow us only to focus on the priorities as we see them and indeed only to block in headlines rather than tease out in detail what should be done in the area of foreign affairs.
I will repeat as politely as I can, a request that has been made and a promise given by the Government for a foreign affairs all-party committee of this House. We are now coming to the end of the fourth term during which this Government have been in power and my understanding is that in each of those terms the Government Whip has promised the Fine Gael Whip that such a committee would be set up. The Minister is as good at addition as I am and it would be entirely inappropriate if this House were to set up such a committee against the wishes of the Government and without the participation of the Government party. I will leave it at that.
As the Minister laid out in his speech, a whole range of subjects need to be discussed here. The area of ODA will be dealt with by Deputy Griffin on behalf of Fine Gael so I will not deal with it now. In approaching the question of spending Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs we have to be ever mindful of the great urgency of putting in a proper planned structured programme to meet Ireland's obligations in the area of foreign policy, in particular with regard to Northern Ireland.
I join with the Minister in congratulating the Irish at present in Germany for the way they have honoured Ireland by their behaviour both on and off the field and by their skill and courage on the field.
The past year has been a very difficult and controversial one in terms of Anglo-Irish relations. Nonetheless, there is a solid track record of achievements under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, achievements which have had a direct and positive effect on the lives of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. I still have to say frequently in broadcasts and interviews that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not an end in itself but a framework in which progress and change can be achieved. As the date for the review of the workings of the agreement approaches—and again because of the way it is sometimes misrepresented, I will clarify that it is the workings of the agreement which are up for review under Article 11 — the Government must set out an agenda for the next phase of that progress. There must be clear targets and objectives and a demonstrated will to continue on the process of securing peace, justice and stability in all parts of this island. I would be less than honest if I said I was pleased with the Government's performance in this regard.
In the past 12 months I have on a number of occasions drawn attention to the fact that the Government are not pursuing the Anglo-Irish Agreement with either the tenacity or the determination with which it should be pursued. Consequently, the Government find themselves at frequent intervals, as they are today, going in to the conference on the defensive. Today for the umpteenth time in the past 18 months they are going in on the defensive. Instead of discussing today what the reported agenda says is a programme for West Belfast and fair employment, something which has been trotted out at every conference meeting and which has been dealt with quite well, the conference will discuss something else.
There does not appear to be any discussion taking place today under Article 7 on the administration of justice and confidence in the security forces. Why is that? Why is it that three months have elapsed since there was a meeting of the conference from 25 March to 17 June? Because the Government have not been insisting on regular meetings of the conference they now find themselves going into a conference where they will have to defend what happened in the courts here earlier this week about extradition and where they will have to reiterate their commitment, as they should, but not in defence of anything to do with security or the bombing that took place yesterday. This is entirely unnecessary and it is the Government's fault for not actively insisting on another meeting. The Minister promised on 25 March that there would be another meeting of the conference in a very short time, or words to that effect. From 25 March to 17 June on anybody's calendar is not a very short time, and on something as sensitive and important as Anglo-Irish relations and the North is concerned, it does not show a commitment to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The thought is being allowed to develop in the minds of a number of people — including mine — that, as Deputy Blaney said, the Anglo-Irish Agreement is being allowed to wither away. I hope that is not true. I certainly do not think it is true of the present Minister or the Minister here today and I hope they will not allow it to wither away because of their neglect.
An immediate priority must be the improvement of the economic situation of both communities in Northern Ireland. The international fund, to which the Minister referred in his speech, which was established under the agreement, has begun the process of identifying areas of potential, economic growth and employment. The Government must adopt a more vigorous approach to using this source of revenue effectively. As the Minister said — and I agree absolutely with him — social justice in Ireland must be pursued on the economic front as well as through the legislative process. That is right and I have no hesitation in applauding that sentiment.
Reform of the judicial process, in addition to the improvement of the administration of justice, lies at the heart of transforming society in the North. This cannot be set aside or forgotten. It is not adequate to have a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference in which Article 7 — as far as I know and I am only judging by press reports as I have no other source of information — is not on the agenda today: the reform of the administration of justice and the confidence-building measures between the nationalist community and the security forces. The Irish Government must ensure that judicial reform is a priority in discussions and in any review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. For instance, the matter of three judge courts must be restored to the agenda. I do not want to go back over the long history of this subject except to say that, under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, both Governments solemnly agreed that it was important that those being governed should have confidence in the administration of justice and in the security forces. That is clearly absent in the North. That should be exercising the minds of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and their officials on a daily basis. They should compare notes on how they can achieve that end. Indeed, under the agreement they are obliged to set about it on a daily basis. For that reason it was proposed that the one judge Diplock Courts should be replaced by two judge Diplock Courts.
I do not think that this Government are married to the idea, exclusive of all other ideas, or getting confidence in the administration of justice. The British Government have turned it down. They are obliged under the agreement to do something about confidence in the administration of justice in the North just as are the Dublin Government. If they do not like that idea, they must come forward with another. Because they have failed to come forward with any other ideas with regard to building confidence in the administration of justice, the Irish Government should immediately, today, put it on the agenda and say: "If you have no other ideas, let us look again at the possibility of changing the one judge Diplock Courts and three judge Diplock Courts".
The west Belfast package has been trotted out over the past few days as being of major importance because west Belfast needs special attention. It needs the attention of the Secretariat, the Conference and of the two Governments for very obvious reasons. Are we seriously saying that a £10 million package spread over a number of years — these are the reports I have been getting but I hope when the Minister stands up to reply that I will be proved wrong about this — will cure the ills of west Belfast? It is only a drop in the ocean and it will go absolutely nowhere. If the Governments are serious about changing the social, the security and the total environment of west Belfast they must realise it needs investment like that almost every month. That is obviously an exaggeration but it needs a demonstration by the British Government that they are serious about it and would need to contribute more than £500,000 or £750,000 which is what is talked about at present.
In Anglo-Irish relations during the past 12 months dialogue has become the in-phrase or the catchword. This is a very good thing because everybody in this House would agree that talk-talk is better than war-war. Any talks, even talks about talks, must be undertaken in good faith and have the potential for progress. It is not enough to think that the talks are an end in themselves. I would like to caution the Government in this regard and to remind them of the words which T.S. Elliot gave to Thomas a' Becket in his play about the last temptation being the greatest treason to do the right deed for the wrong reason. Talk itself is not enough. It must lead somewhere. It must lead towards peace, new political structures, trust, a structure that in the future will benefit both communities in the North, both traditions on this island and both islands in the European Community.
An intergovernmental parliamentary tier is a useful mechanism for enhancing co-operation in the Anglo-Irish sphere. I am glad that slow but steady progress has been made in that regard in the past 12 months. I hope that when we come to debate the Estimate for the Department of Foreign Affairs next year, we will have something solid on which to report in that regard.
In the few minutes I have left I should like to turn to the European Community and a few other topics which I do not want to skip. The Minister devoted a good portion of his speech to the European Community but did not mention the most important thing which happened this week, the blocking by our Minister of the programme for the new financing of the Community in the future. He did not say why he did this, what is the latest position and what will happen. Is what is being proposed by the Commission so out of line with what we want that we had to take this extreme measure of blocking it? Why was this not spotted before last Tuesday? How did it happen that the European Commission were allowed to put forward a package that would be out of step or not over-lapping with what was agreed when the Single European Act was negotiated, that there would have to be cohesion and that the finances of the Community had to be guaranteed so that those on the periphery — those less well off — would not be allowed to fall behind in the benefits that will accrue to the Community by the completion of the internal market by 1992.
The European Community is an essential aspect of our foreign policy considerations. Since the passing of the Act last year the Government have been woefully inadequate in the preparations for completing the single internal market for 1992. The Minister said there will be a meeting on 4 July. I would like to thank the Taoiseach for the invitation he sent me to take part in that meeting which I am very happy to accept. But 4 July 1988 is 12 months after 1 July 1987 when the Single European Act came into effect, that is, 12 months late and there has been no action in the meantime from this Government, even though at the last count 80, and maybe at this stage 100, of the Directives in regard to 1992 have been processed and have gone through.
I would have liked to discuss the American election and the opportunity it gives us at this stage to influence both candidates as regards the illegal immigrants in America and to have on their agenda something to stop the continued supply of funds that are bringing about the kind of violence we saw the day before yesterday.
I am sorry I have not time to complete some of the other points I wanted to make in regard to this very important Estimate. I appeal again to the Minister to take note of what I have said about the committee on foreign affairs. I am sure he will readily agree to doing it but I hope that agreement will extend beyond merely the courtesy of an agreement in this regard to providing further time for a debate on foreign affairs in this House.
Like Deputy Barry, I think it a very sad reflection on the Dáil which has been acknowledged by the Minister of State in his opening speech, that this is the only opportunity, the one opportunity in the year, we get to discuss real matters of foreign policy, developments in the world at large and Ireland's place as a so-called neutral country in these developments. Developments in the world today, especially in the disarmament area, have huge implications for this country in the coming years. Yet we are allocated only 15 minutes today, 15 minutes in the year, to discuss such matters. There have been only three foreign affairs debates since I entered the Dáil 15 months ago and it is notable that all of the issues, the peace plan on Nicaragua, the position of out-of-status immigrants in the US and the Birmingham Six motion this week were organised and debated mainly in the Opposition's time in the House. The only other debate of a foreign affairs nature, the debate on the Cecchini report, the cost benefit analysis of the implications of the single internal market by 1992, was requested by the Opposition and we dedicated one day to it. The only time I am aware of that the Government set aside in the schedule of business for a debate of a foreign affairs nature was the 20 minutes or so allocated to the party leaders every year to report back on EC Heads of Government meetings. This is not good enough. Again this year I support the call by Deputy Barry for the setting up of a foreign affairs committee in this House.
We are living in a changing world where the Russian Leader, Mr. Gorbachev, is involved in discussions of an historic nature on disarmament with President Reagan. The nature and balance of power in the EC is undergoing a major revision even this year, with Austria talking of entering the EC, increasing relations between the EC and the COMECON countries in circumstances in which we are destined to implement 350 or so proposals for the completion of the internal market by 1992. Yet, we never discuss these fundamental matters in this House. The superpowers are now dealing directly with one another. Yet we never mention the sensitive area of defence security developments in the world today. I believe we are afraid to because of our so-called traditional policy of neutrality which is the most important instrument of our foreign policy. Successive Irish Governments in claiming to support the policy of neutrality are supporting a doctrine which has no clear set of guidelines. We have never debated it.
I will give a crowning example of this doctrine of neutrality and how we implement it. The former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, told the Dáil during the debate on the Single European Bill last year that he as the Leader of our Government implementing that so-called traditional policy of neutrality had occasion, at European Heads of Government meetings, to listen to after-dinner discussions about decisions which might lead to disarmament. Deputy FitzGerald then stated: "By a convention which we have all established together in this House I remain silent during these discussions." I pose this question to the House today: if we were really a neutral country should a Taoiseach have to sit down during discussions on disarmament in Europe? No, I believe he should not, because a truly neutral country with its neutrality well thought out would have clear views on nuclear warfare and the desirability of disarmament. We have never debated or even thought out seriously our foreign relations in so far as they impinge on defence questions. We do not even have a foreign affairs committee in the House. Simplistically we say we are neutral and want to leave it at that. Vaguely we hope if there is a war that someone will protect us and, if pressed to say who, we feel it might suit the US to do so.
It is not widely appreciated that in international law a state loses its neutral status if it cannot take steps to prevent a belligerent using it to the detriment of another belligerent. Sweden and Switzerland know this and as real neutrals have always acted accordingly.
I turn now to European political co-operation and some issues I would not have an opportunity to raise in the course of debate in this House during the year. We spend no time at all in this House debating defence security developments in the world. We have laudable statements every few years from the Taoiseach of the day, the most recent one made by the Taoiseach in the US in the past few weeks, with which I agree, but we never discuss the whole area of security and defence as it impinges on this country's foreign policy. Yet, the French, the British and the Germans are taking steps both bilaterally with one another and through the Western European Union to differentiate their security concerns from those of the US. A major motivating factor has been their concern at the limited peripheral role permitted to them in the current arms reduction talks between the two power blocs and in particular the deployment of missiles within Europe. Similarly, the other members of NATO — Norway, Spain, Portugal, Greece and, most recently, Denmark—which fought its recent general election on the question of admitting NATO warships with nuclear weapons on board into its ports — are demonstrating a greater willingness to assert their independence whether it be over the presence of nuclear armed vessels or air bases.
As the superpowers deal directly with one another and US political interests diverge from those of the western European nations, the inherent tensions within the European alliance — I use that word loosely — are becoming more apparent. On the one hand direct talks between the Soviets and the Americans fuel European apprehensions that their interests would be overlooked and that ultimately they might be left to their own resources while, on the other hand, there is the fear that increased tension between the superpowers will find them entrapped in procedures up to and including the use of force without every having had an opportunity to say "No". This oscillation between fears of abandonment and fears of entrapment is making some of our European partners more open to new ideas. Yet we never discuss them. EC member countries are already beginning to think of a common defence policy in Europe. By the year 2,000 we will be posed this question by our economic allies in Europe: where do we stand? We as a country have not prepared the answer. We have never debated the defence neutrality question seriously.
Three options seem to exist for this country and I would like a national debate to start on this issue. The first option is to continue talking about our so-called traditional policy of neutrality while never defining it. Let us consider the real options. Should we assert now a coherent positive policy of neutrality in all international fora in which we as a country are involved and accept the serious financial consequences of that or should we be prepared to play our part, as Governments in the past have indicated we should, in all aspects of an increasingly integrated Europe which could in the future involve the evolution of a common defence policy without economic allies in the European Community? If we are to contemplate doing so, we should try to be in a position to establish the parameters of a Europe that could be non-nuclear.
I should like to express my disappointment at the views of the Minister of State on the harmonisation of VAT come the internal market in 1992. I was disappointed that the Minister simply stated that he is working to sustain the impact of VAT harmonisation. The Minister has not yet spelled out the full Government policy on this issue. As Deputy Barry said, it is disappointing that the Government only committed themselves to conducting an information and awareness campaign on the huge implications of 1992 as a direct result of Dáil pressure from the Progressive Democrats and Fine Gael.
I like the order of the parties.
We deplore the hesitant leadership on the part of the Government which has since last year's referendum allowed public perception of the single market in 1992 to become synonymous with VAT on food and clothes. In my view that is wrong and uninformed. The EC single market programme, which is well under way involving more than 350 proposals at the last count, is overwhelmingly in the interests of this country. However, the Government allowed the debate to go down a negative cul-de-sac of "Can we afford the VAT proposals on food and clothes or can we not?".
The harmonisation of VAT does not mean a single VAT rate throughout the Community. Two VAT ranges are provided for in the 1992 proposals, a lower band of 4 per cent to 9 per cent for necessities, such as foodstuffs, and a standard rate band of between 14 per cent and 19 per cent for other goods and service. Therefore, it should be possible for the Government without undue revenue implications, and a bit of forward planning which we have not seen, to bring food in at the lower 4 per cent rate and compensate the poorest sections of the community for that imposition.
I acknowledge that so great is the Government's — and their predecessors' — dependence on indirect taxation that the revenue objection to the full harmonisation of VAT is a serious one. However, there is a way to meet this target. There are three options that could be pursued by the Government. First, Ireland could accept the revenue reductions and trim public expenditure accordingly but, given the Government's present financial position, that, in practice, is not a real option. Secondly, other resources of revenue could be tapped. That is an obvious and practical solution. The third option is to appeal to the Community for a transfer of funds to tide us through the transition stage. The new EC structural funds could be used in part for this purpose. The fact that Ireland's heavy reliance on indirect taxation is recognised explicitly by the White Paper suggests that this would not seem an unreasonable request but, at most, such funding would only partly compensate for the revenue loss.
Our party believe that a combination of the three options, accepting some reduction in expenditure and, therefore, revenue, tapping other tax sources and receiving some transfers from the Community, allied to a very gradual and phased approach towards harmonisation could and can be pushed through by the Government if they are determined and committed to the concept of tax reform within the EC. The fundamental view of our party is that no derogation, no further exemption, is necessary. The Government should use the deadline of 1992 to provide the ideal externally imposed opportunity to introduce the long overdue reform of our tax system.
In the time remaining I should like to touch on a number of other issues. There has been a cut in our aid programme to the Third World of more than 25 per cent in the last year. Those cuts are deplorable even given our financial constraints. Third World aid is one of the last that should be cut because of the commitment of our people to poorer parts of the world. In the Estimate the Department have picked on the overseas aid offices in Lusaka and Kenya and on the Agency for Personal Services Overseas. Instead of homing in on the weak we could have joined the EC office in Brussels to the embassy in Belgium, for example. We did not close some of the consular offices in the US or join the two embassies in Italy, the embassy in the Vatican and the embassy in the Italian state. I believe that is an option presented by the Minister for Finance in the Estimates to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I will be interested to hear the reaction of Deputy Brian Lenihan, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to that proposal.
That has been so for the past ten years.
I believe so. We did not join together the Council of Europe representation to the embassy in Luxembourg. We did none of those things but took up the soft option which was to reduce overseas aid.
The final point I should like to deal with concerns Israel. For 40 years we have avoided having a resident ambassador from Israel in this country or establishing a embassy in Israel. When Israel was standing high in the world we would not do so and when Israel's reputation sank we had a ready excuse, as we have now. However, at the same time we have a PLO office operating in Dublin which it is almost assuming the status of an embassy. It is time we considered giving Israel access to this country. I deplore the activities of the Israeli Government in recent months but if we are an open neutral country, we should allow representatives from that country to put their views here particularly when we have the PLO, a terrorist organisation akin to the IRA, fully represented here.
I cannot understand the Government's attitude to Libya. It has been the most curious part of our foreign policy in the last year. Despite mounting hard evidence that Libya gives arms and money to the IRA, we refuse to break off diplomatic relations with that country. Spurious reasons are produced in support of this as we learned in response to various questions put to the Minister in recent months. Because of the huge arms shipments to this country, the time has come to break off diplomatic relations with Libya. I cannot understand why Fianna Fáil have been so cautious about making such a move.
I did not raise the issue of Northern Ireland today because I was anxious to mention some issues that I cannot deal with during the course of the usual debates in the House. However, I hope that a full Anglo-Irish Summit will be arranged between the Taoiseach and Mrs. Thatcher before the review of the Agreement at the end of the year. The side meetings at meetings of Heads of State are not sufficient.
I should like to join with Members who have complained about the inadequate amount of time allocated to a debate on Foreign Affairs. I welcome the conversion to the idea of a foreign policy committee in the House. For those interested in the evolution of this concept I recommend that they read my description of the history of such a committee contained in the spring edition of Studies. It is contained on pages 63 to 67. In that issue I gave a description of the struggle for a foreign policy committee. When I was a Member of the Seanad on 10 December 1986 I moved a proposal to establish a foreign policy committee with 11 stated terms of reference. On that occasion I was assured by the Fianna Fáil group in the Seanad that they supported the idea. It was opposed by the then Leader of the Fine Gael group in the Seanad, Senator Dooge. In the event, Fianna Fáil abstained on the vote and the Fine Gael group defeated my proposal. I make that statement to set the record straight.
I should like to set the record straight in terms of fairness. Professor Dooge, one of our most distinguished Ministers for Foreign Affairs, argued against my proposal not on a matter of principle but because of the terms of reference I put forward for it.
I would prefer if the Deputy did not refer to matters appertaining to the other House.
I am not referring to the proceedings in the other House but Studies, spring 1988, which thankfully has recorded the total events and the history of this committee. I want to refer to what happened in this House on the same issue. I have asked the Taoiseach again and again would he agree to the establishment of a committee on foreign affairs. I almost became a caricature as I stood up on the Order of Business and asked him if he had given consideration to the idea. I was told it was under consideration, deep consideration, further consideration. One day I asked him whether it was in deep refrigeration or in fermentation in his brain. The Taoiseach and the Government were against a committee on foreign policy.
I want to be very clear about the implications of this because I have not the time to go into it in detail. I make a case for an Oireachtas joint committee on foreign policy to take up some of the issues raised by the immediately preceding speaker, Deputy Kennedy, so that we will have an informed debate about neutrality. After listening to Deputy Kennedy I am quite confused as to where the Progressive Democrats stand on the issue of neutrality. I am also confused as to where a number of other Deputies in this House stand on that issue. There has been a long debate on neutrality within my own party. There is a published policy paper. The debate began not with de Valera, as many people suggest, but with Tom Johnson who wrote about neutrality. We have, in our policy document, stated what we mean by principles of positive neutrality.
It pre-dates Johnson.
It does of course but I am only speaking about the Labour Party. I am glad that Deputy Barry has interrupted me.
I am sorry for interrupting.
We could debate this issue if we had a foreign policy committee. It would be very much better than the kind of confused extra-parliamentary comment that is going on. Neutrality is not a concept simply about a European dimension. I very much object to and resent the suggestion that we should take on some kind of under labourer conception of ourselves, that to play our part in a European sense makes a case for making swipes at a badly defined set of actions that have been justified in the name of neutrality. Neutrality is a wider concept addressed to a world of mutual interdependency, a world threatened by war, in which there have been significant developments in this year alone towards disarmament and in which there has been a great imbalance of resources in favour of armaments and against the removal of necessary resources from the tasks of development and, perhaps most important of all, the displacement of resources from addressing the great issues of world malnutrition and world hunger. It is within that dimension and framework that you have to address neutrality and not within a narrower framework in terms of geopolitics, time, history or scale.
As I have said, I have a very limited time. There is agreement in this House among a large number of Deputies for the setting up of a foreign policy committee to debate this and other issues and yet it has not been set up. I assert that one of the reasons for this is the confusion that has existed for many decades in this country between two quite separate things — the informed intellectual and often brilliant practice of diplomacy and the establishment of foreign policy. We have been elected to this House to establish, develop, maintain and give voice to principles of foreign policy. The Government of the day are most of the time, as the Minister of State has said and as Deputy Barry has often said, operating within a consensus on many of the great issues of principle. There are other areas where there are real differences and equally there are areas where policy needs to be evolved. One example is European political co-operation. Now there is the issue of the consequences of the integrated market, the balancing issue of cohesion and so on. These are issues on which elected representatives should establish principles of policy. What elected representatives sometimes get are reports on part of the diplomatic activities. This is an old argument, as old as the history of diplomacy, and it goes back to Talleyrand's victory over the elective process in terms of diplomatic practice. We need a foreign policy committee to give democratic expression to the will of the people.
Instead, we are going in the other direction. I have time to give only a fleeting example. Far from establishing a foreign policy committee, we have disbanded the committee which dealt with aid and assistance. I was a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Co-operation. It was a forum to which Third World groups and development workers came. In its day it established a charter of practice. It addressed the issue of moral and adequate development, North-South relations, the transfer of technology — I could go on. That committee was one of the first casualties in the demolition of the committee system. We are going away from having fora in which we can debate foreign policy rather than establishing accountability. Thus we have a very limited opportunity for debate in this House.
We have 15 minutes each to discuss what role Ireland might play in the world in relation to the great issues that I mentioned — disarmament, development and world hunger — to discuss Europe, the zones in areas of conflict, be they in the Middle East or Central America, and to discuss the developments in the relationships between the super-powers. It is an insult to the intelligence that we have only that short time to discuss Northern Ireland and the horrific events that are taking place there, to discuss emigration, the details of European policy, the immoral behaviour of the South African Government, to discuss Kampuchea and the question that has been raised about the recent Arab-Israeli conflict. It is ridiculous. In the minutes I have available to me I can comment on just a few topics.
The Minister referred to Northern Ireland. There is need for a rediscovering or, some might say, an injection into the process of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There must be revulsion among people of any humanity to the most appalling murders that we have seen since we last debated Northern Ireland in this House. Other shadows have been cast over the Northern Ireland dimension in our foreign affairs policy in the last 12 months. One of the most important of these has been the British attitude. There is evidence that yet again there is an enormous difficulty in the British mind in accepting some basic fundamentals of sovereign independence, in accepting Ireland's attitudes and opinions in relation to the resolution of the difficulties in Northern Ireland and in accepting that it is dealing with a sovereign equal. There is also the elevation of issues of security to the exclusion of other issues such as the lost legitimacy of the Northern Ireland State and the impact of this on the communities in Northern Ireland.
I was very interested — again the time indicates that I must be brief — in the Minister's reference to emigration. He referred to two aspects in particular: welfare in general and the specific position of the Irish illegal emigrants in the United States. I will put a straight question to him now because a question of mine was transferred from the Taoiseach to the Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday. Will he establish a commission on emigration? Because of the volume of emigration, there was a commission on emigration from 1948-51. It has been estimated that 35,000 people will emigrate between now and 1992 and 25,000 between 1992 and the year 2000. Those are the projected figures from the Economic and Social Research Institute. There is a tacit acceptance in this country that we must rerun the old experience of the fifties, that we must not question the economic and social structures that expel people through involuntary emigration. People are driving us daft in this House talking about the near consensus that is established about economic policy. Let us be perfectly clear. Those economic policies are not creating jobs even in conditions of falling interest rates, high exports and low inflation.
There is the issue of welfare but here is my question: if the Minister is sincere about the welfare of emigrants, will he do what other European countries do? Will he give a vote to the emigrants? Will he arrange voting facilities for those citizens who involuntarily emigrate?
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but he has three minutes remaining of the time allotted to him.
Many of them leave jobs——
I cannot go into all this in just three minutes but there may be other occasions to speak on these matters, if we ever get such a debate.
We will not, that is the problem.
On the question of the European Communities, we had a day's debate on what is an indirect report on the cost of non-completion of the market, but we have not had an opportunity in this House to look at and compare two competing logics — the logic of completing an internal market and, at the same time, achieving principles of cohesion. Many people welcomed the specific formal references to regional policy in the Single European Act. There was a debate on this and people welcomed the commitment to increasing funds, but this House has not been told what precise mechanisms are being used to develop the regional cohesion aspect in such a way that it can mitigate the effects which are unfavourable to this country in terms of completion of the market.
I am tired of hearing that preparations are well advanced in relation to making submissions. What will be the sub-regional procedures? How will projects be submitted? What will be the Commission's requirements? We are left in the dark in that regard.
In the short time left, may I raise another issue, that is the way we have had to race things through this House. At the end of last year I submitted a request to the Department of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Nicaraguan Government for a very specific kind of aid — a country free of foot and mouth disease asking another country without foot and mouth disease to give 3,500 tonnes of dried powered milk to assist children and elderly people. I was told this would come up in the context of a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of the Community and the Foreign Ministers of Central America on 29 February and 1 March 1988. It did indeed come up, and there was a regional community commitment to increase aid to the region. I have heard nothing since despite serveral questions asked in the Dáil, sometimes of the Minister for Agriculture and Food and sometimes of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. One does not know where one stands on such a minor matter.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister—in the likely event of there being executions in South Africa—to reconsider his position in relation to sanctions and to stop the scandal of Ireland importing coal from a Government who are behaving in such an immoral way.
The Deputy will please bring his speech to a close.
Reference has been made to the conflict in the Middle East. There is little merit in abusing the PLO or getting engrossed in what is terrorism and what is not. I suspect that in this House there would be support for the development of a policy extending beyond the Bahrain Principles.
I am obliged to call another speaker.
I will finish my sentence. I believe the principles of progress in this area will involve the recognition of the State of Israel and the elimination of its genuine security fears, but will also include the principle of the acceptance of the right of the Palestinian people to a state and, in the context of an international conference this will contribute to some progress.
As other speakers have said, the time allocated for this topic is totally inadequate. It might be reasonable if we were allocated this amount of time every week to discuss foreign affairs because the area is developing so fast it is impossible to deal adequately with even one issue in the time available. I support fully the call by Deputy Michael Higgins for a foreign policy committee to be established urgently so that the areas of concern in foreign affairs, which have been referred to and which no doubt will be referred to again can be adequately discussed and dealt with.
I would like to take up initially the remark made by Deputy Kennedy with regard to the PLO, linking them with the Provisional IRA. This is a superficial linking of the two groups because there is no similarity between them whatsoever. The PLO are a national organisation representative of the Palestinian people and are recognised as such, not just by the United Nations and most non-aligned countries but also by a number of our EC partners. The Provisional IRA are a small, sectarian, bigoted organisation which represent virtually nobody except a small group who for a variety of reasons find themselves, in some cases, trapped into support for them and others, because they misunderstand totally what are the objectives of the Provisional IRA either in the long term or the short term.
In relation specifically to the Israeli and Palestinian question, it is my conviction that the Government should introduce diplomatic and economic sanctions against the Israeli Government to protest at that country's continued killing of Palestinian civilians and other abuses of human rights in the Israeli occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Almost 350 Palestinian civilians have been killed since late November-early December last year, a little over six months. It is estimated that something like 10,000 civilians have been wounded by Israeli security forces.
The relatively strong stand taken by the Irish Government on Israeli activities so far was more than welcome and certainly went further than any previous administration on this issue. Certainly the comments made by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Calleary, in the Dáil on 26 May last when he condemned "the harsh and repressive response of the Israeli forces" were particularly appropriate and he was, I believe, speaking for the vast majority of Irish people when he referred to the "the widespread sense of outrage at the harsh measures adopted by Israel".
Anyone who has visited the occupied territory, as a representative of The Workers' Party and other Members of the Oireachtas did recently, could not but be shocked by the outrageous actions of the Israeli security forces which resulted in the death of almost 350 Palestinian civilians and wounding almost 10,000 more. What is striking is the similarities we see on our television screens almost daily between what is happening in Soweto and other South African townships and what is happening in those occupied areas. The parallels between life for blacks under South African rule and for Palestinians under Israeli rule are shocking.
I now want to deal with the question of Northern Ireland. The building of democracy within Northern Ireland and the central role of the people of Northern Ireland in that process remain the essential priorty for the promotion of peace and political progress not just in Northern Ireland but on this island as a whole. Devolved democratic structures, an effective and comprehensive Bill of Rights, a united community effort to defeat sectarian terror and massive investment in jobs have been and must be the consistent foundation of a programme for peace and progress in the North.
It has to be said that there has been too much talk about the future of Northern Ireland in terms which ignore or undervalue the democratic rights of the people there. I would be pleased to see a genuine improvement in relationships between the Government of Britain and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, an end to the stubbornness, stupidity and hostility which have acted against the interests of the people of both countries. Northern Ireland's problems will not be solved by some deal between the Taoiseach and British Prime Minister. No lasting or effective solution will be found by going behind the backs or over the heads of the people within Northern Ireland who must live with the consequences of any such deals.
In the absence of democratic political structures in Northern Ireland, the evil of sectarian terror has flourished. This is the overriding threat to democracy, not just in Northern Ireland but in this island as a whole. We cannot simply join in the chorus of regret when some new atrocity moves the public conscience and then settle back to do nothing until the next opportunity for breast-beating occurs. We need to root out the attitudes which have sustained the Provisionals in society for 20 years. We need a firm consensus among the democratic forces throughout Ireland which will maintain an implacable hostility to terror and all those who would support or excuse it. The Provisionals are conducting a savage sectarian campaign of murder against all those who oppose them and, as long as this is the case, there can be no place for them in any democratic political dialogue.
I want to refer specifically to the on-going discussions taking place between the SDLP and Provisionals. It is appalling, in the aftermath of the massacre in Lisburn and the murder of another man by the Provisionals in Belfast in the past few days, that the SDLP can announce yet again that they intend to continue their talks with the Provisional IRA. We in The Workers' Party have consistently condemned these talks but the public must be confused by the apparent reluctance of the other parties to condemn them. There is a lot of ambivalence and ambiguity on the part of spokespersons on radio and television when asked about their attitude to these talks. The general reply is: "If John Hume thinks it is okay, who are we to criticise John Hume?" While I and my party have the height of respect for John Hume, we believe that he is wrong in carrying on these talks with the Provisional IRA when they have consistently stated, as recently as the day before yesterday, that they intend to continue their campaign of terror in Northern Ireland and elsewhere until their objectives are achieved.
These talks are a total waste of time and are lending the Provisionals a false legitimacy. I call on Mr. Hume to end those talks and I would urge other parties in this House to do likewise. He is doing nothing for the advancement of peace, progress and democracy in Northern Ireland while maintaining these talks. I do not deny that he entered into the talks in an effort to wean the Provisionals away from their campaign of terror but the evidence of the past six months shows that it is a false hope and that he is not dealing with people who are prepared to listen to logic and reason in relation to peace and progress in Northern Ireland.
Clearly there has been very great progress internationally in regard to nuclear disarmament, especially during the past 12 months when advances have been made by the President of the United States and the Leader of the Soviet Union. There is a great feeling of hope among people that nuclear weapons can be eliminated. They are now talking about eliminating rather than reducing them.
I am very pleased to have read the contribution which the Taoiseach made to the United Nations on the question of disarmament. It was a very positive contribution which represented the feelings of most people in this country with regard to nuclear weapons. If I can find no other basis for agreement with the Taoiseach on a whole range of issues ranging from Northern Ireland to the economy, I am happy to be able to say that I welcome his United Nations contribution. I hope he will urge his Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs to actively pursue the three specific proposals he made.
I was particularly pleased that the Taoiseach emphasised, as did the Minister of State today, the need to place the United Nations at the centre stage internationally in dealing with relations between countries as well as various regional problems and conflicts. In recent years The Workers' Party have been aware of a shift away from placing the UN at the centre of international affairs and an attempt to pull back into the European Community as the focus and centre of our activity. We also felt that there was a drift towards allowing the European political co-operation process to dictate what our position should be internationally. I am happy to say that I detect a slight improvement in the situation, which I welcome.
In regard to South Africa, we should as a matter of urgency impose a ban on the importation of coal from that country. There is no doubt that we are dealing with a rotten administration which thrives on the repression of human beings. Anything we can do to end that administration should be done.
I would also emphasise the urgent need for an Oireachtas foreign policy committee. A lot of common ground could be found between the parties, although obviously there would be major areas of difference. The only realistic forum for the kind of debate which is needed on foreign policy is a foreign policy committee. I urge the Minister of State to impress upon the Government the need for such a committee.
As Fine Gael spokesman on Overseas Development Aid, I will confine my remarks specifically to Vote 41, International Co-operation. This debate on the Estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation has been in progress for approximately an hour and a half, but during this short period of time a total of 2,275 children in the Third World have died of malnutrition and preventable diseases. It is acknowledged by all Third World agencies that at least 25 children die every minute of every hour of every day. These horrific figures exclude adults and teenagers. I am not recalling that for the sake of sensationalism. I believe those statistics might concentrate our minds and help us to debate the International Co-operation Vote against the stark reality of the real world, the Third World.
Against this awful background of human misery and suffering, the Estimates introduced by the Minister of State here today make appalling reading. They are indicative of the Government's attitude to the plight of the weakest and most vulnerable section of humanity. Above all else it proves, if proof were necessary, the Government's uncaring and totally insensitive approach to this major human problem. The Minister is so very rich in rhetoric but so poor in delivering the necessary finance.
Let us put aside the verbiage and look at what the Minister and his Government have to offer us today. They are announcing, although couched in parliamentary language, that the ODA for 1988 is to be reduced by a massive £14 million, from over £45 million in 1987 when we left office to a little over £31 million now, a cut of over 26 per cent.
However, the cuts go much deeper when one realises that, as members of the UN and EC, we are obligated to give about half of this aid. So the reduction in what we contribute voluntarily is a massive 40 per cent or thereabouts. I maintain that this is callously disproportionate to the 6 per cent overall reduction in total Exchequer expenditure in 1988. In fact, the total expenditure on the Foreign Affairs Vote was increased by approximately 3 per cent. I should have thought and hoped that all Departments would be asked to bear an equal share of these cutbacks but the soft option of the overseas development aid has been more severely hit. The Minister and his Minister of State must stand accused of not defending their portfolios more successfully and vigorously around the Cabinet table against the preying hands of their more grasping colleagues.
That £14 million cut impinges mostly on what is known as our bilateral aid fund. The bilateral aid fund is concentrated mainly on four sub-Saharan African countries three of which, Lesotho, Tanzania and Sudan, are on the United Nations list of the 40 least developed countries in the world. The fourth priority country, Zambia, has applied to be reclassified into this group. The least developed countries, including the four I mentioned, have a per capita gross national product of roughly 200 American dollars per annum compared to Ireland's 5,000 American dollars. Indeed, in Ethiopia it is reckoned that it is as low as 110 American dollars, and we compare that with the almighty high figure in the USA of 16,690 American dollars per annum. So we are talking about taking essential aid from the poorest of the poor.
We are told that the disaster relief provision is to be reduced by over half a million to a derisory, token £1,000 and this against a background of rumours and stories of further disasters in Ethiopia, in Mozambique and in the Sudan. Again, when we remember that Ireland is reckoned to be the 27th richest nation in the world, voluntary contributions to the UN agencies such as the UN Childrens' Fund and the UN High Commission for Refugees are to be cut also by £1.2 million a 67 per cent cutback. This affects the basics of food and health care which in the poorest countries can be matters of life and death and this, again, is against a background of 25 children dying every minute of every hour.
A pledge was given as recently as March 1986 to contribute £1.5 million to the world food programme, and that now is not to be honoured. The world food programme provides food aid in famine situations so this is also an issue of life and death in Ethiopia, in the Sudan and in Mozambique. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN is to have its contribution reduced by almost £0.5 million, a further massive 90 per cent cut.
This year's aid, as a percentage of gross national product, will fall from 0.25 per cent in 1987 to 0.185 per cent in 1988, the lowest it has been since 1981. Fine Gael, as the major partner in the previous Government, accepted the UN target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product and were progressing steadily towards that figure. On leaving office it was at 0.25 per cent but it is at a miserable 0.185 per cent. There is widespread alarm and fear among all those agencies involved in the Third World that if cuts of the same magnitude are imposed again in 1989 it will mean the death-knell of our bilateral aid programme. Ireland's overseas development aid has been built up painstakingly over the past 13 years with the sweat and toil of missionaries and volunteer workers. Indeed, it would be tragic if all that expertise, that fund of knowledge and know-how, all those magnificent projects undertaken, were to cease.
I want to get a categorical assurance today from the Minister present that when the Estimates for 1989 are being discussed he will tell his colleagues to keep their hands off the ODA Vote, that it is sacrosanct, that it has already borne more than its share of cutbacks, that there is nothing else to cut bar the very programme itself. Indeed, I would urge the Minister to restore the aid to the level it was at when he took office and set it on its way again towards the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product.
While speaking in Brussels recently the Minister of State was quoted as saying that further cutbacks could be made, and in his response to me in the Adjournment debate of 1 June he was far from convincing and left a lot of doubt about the Government's commitment to ODA. During the course of the debate he also tried unsuccessfully to equate a small reduction in the Coalition Government's last budget to the massive £14 million cut in this year's Estimate. He also tried to persuade the House that the same level of projects, of operations, of works can be maintained despite the huge and massive cut of £14 millon. No one believes that and I doubt if the Minister himself believes it.
The Deputy did not listen to what I actually said.
I have the Minister's speech here and he should read it again.
The Deputy should have read it first.
The record of Fine Gael in regard to ODA is beyond reproach. When in Government we appointed, for the first time, a Minister of State with responsibility for development co-operation and I doubt if the present Minister of State will be held in the same high regard as his immediate predecessors, Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and George Birmingham. I speak, of course, on a political level. I know the Minister in his personal capacity is a man of the highest integrity. I am referring to this political portfolio. If and when the present Minister matches these contributions to ODA, financial or otherwise, I will willingly withdraw my criticism.
These cuts could not have come at a worse time for the Third World. Despite all of the international assistance, things have got progressively and steadily worse since the early eighties. Serious economic problems have arisen on the continent of Africa, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Because of the chronic shortage of resources available for development, another more acute problem has arisen. Much of Africa has suffered a serious fall in trading income as the prices of its export commodities declined sharply. Its burden of debt, already high in relation to its means, increased as it resorted to more borrowing, much of it on marketrelated terms which it was ill-fitted to service. We are told that the total indebtedness of the Third World now amounts to a massive US$1.19 trillion and that US$30 billion are being syphoned and squeezed out of the Third World each year to service this enormous debt.
I believe the Minister would have had the full support of the Irish people in any increase. Famine relief has always found a ready and sympathetic response from us. I suppose the great hungers of the mid 1840s still lurk in our subconsciousness. We too were colonised for over 700 years, and like the 500 million under-privileged people in today's Third World, we experienced deprivation, hunger and victimisation. A survey carried out in 1985 indicated that 83 per cent of Irish people supported the principle that the Government should at least maintain, if not increase, their contribution to the Third World. The response of the Irish people to Bob Geldof's Band Aid and Live Aid is legendary and their magnificent contributions to Trócaire, Concern, Goal and a host of other worth while relief agencies leaves one in no doubt about where their hearts lie. It would be churlish of me to omit reference to the many missionaries of all denominations, nuns, brothers, and the splendid voluntary workers of APSO who are prepared to give a more lasting and tangible proof of their Christian belief in the brotherhood of man.
Against this background of moral support the Government are missing out on the role the Irish people would wish them to play on the world stage. Ireland could act as the beacon light for the Third World and could highlight in all international fora the scandal of the Third World. It could continuously prick the consciousness of the First World and keep reminding them of their obligations and responsibilities to the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak, but all of that is now irrevocably lost. Our moral platform has been abandoned because we too took the thirty shillings and sold our Christian heritage for £14 million. I know that some of this aid will be restored as soon as economic circumstances permit, but how many more children will die in the meantime and how many Ethiopian or Sudanese mothers with babes at breast will expire in the desert sands before economic circumstances improve? I ask the Minister to consider these thoughts before he and his Cabinet colleagues axe further ODA as he is literally playing with life and death.
I will concentrate on three issues: first, the general conduct of foreign affairs in the context of the involvement of this House; secondly, neutrality; thirdly, Anglo-Irish relations. If I have time I would like to say a few words on human rights in other countries.
On Wednesday evening this House passed unanimously, certainly without dissent, a resolution in regard to Irish prisoners in British prisons. The terms of that resolution asked the House to call on the British Government to carry out a certain range of acts in regard to these prisoners. It is not all that long since another resolution of the House was made and before that again demands were made that the Government should articulate an insistence on the closing of nuclear power stations across the Irish Sea.
I do not want to make a political meal out of either of these issues. I merely want to raise the question of whether it is wise for this House to articulate demands on foreign Governments? I think it would jeopardise the dignity of this House if we were to put this House in a position or indeed for a Government to put themselves in a position where they articulated demands in fairly peremptory language to a foreign Government, demands which we may be 100 per cent justified in making, but which that foreign Government may very easily ignore. I do not think we should give foreign Governments the opportunity to either say, think or act as though they were thinking; "Let those people over there in Dublin go and take a running jump for themselves". There must be more diplomatic, and perhaps more effective, ways of doing international business than articulating resolutions in this House no matter how praiseworthy the contents or objectives of the resolutions. I would not like to see the House doing that because, if we find in one month's time that the House has been ignored, it is only the House and its, own dignity that will suffer.
The second issue I want to deal with is an issue which I never forget to mention in the debate on this Estimate, that is, the question of neutrality. I had intended to say a few words only on this issue and probably would have done so were it not for what I heard Deputy Higgins saying. He seems to think that it is unworthy of us to adopt what I believe he called — if I misheard him, I am sorry — an underlabourer, whatever that is, conception of defensive co-operation. He thought it was not good enough for us to say that we all should pull our weight with all of the others out there and put our shoulders to the wheel. I think it is better to be an under-labourer than to be a sponger and that is the condition to which this State has reduced itself during the years and from which it now shows signs of being about to shake itself free.
I go this distance with Deputy Higgins. I am not 100 per cent clear in my mind what Deputy Kennedy's and her party's attitude is towards neutrality but I know she is willing to reopen the question and that is what I also want. I suspect that there are many sleepers in this House among all parties who also share this view.
I support it also.
It should not be reopened by way of a debate in a committee, which is what Deputy Higgins wants, but by way of leadership being given by that body in this State to which responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs is entrusted by the Constitution under Article 29, namely, the Government. We are tired of having debates in this country. We always read in the newspapers of notice being given that there is going to be a long hot summer of debate on this issue or a Minister calling for a long winter of debate on the issue. What we want is leadership.
If I may appeal to the gentlemen opposite, Mr. de Valera understood this and did not call for debates on this or that. He was scarcely willing, by all accounts, to tolerate debates even in his own Cabinet but he most certainly delivered leadership whether it was for the better or the worse, particularly in the conduct of foreign affairs when he thought it was proper to do so. He did not set up committees to discuss this or that.
Deputy Higgins cited former Senator Johnson who was a very respected Irish politician and statesman who gave this State very important assistance in the twenties in getting its democracy off the ground and keeping it there. My God, he is being cited 60 years on by Deputy Higgins as having articulated on behalf of the Labour Party a policy of neutrality. There were people in the Fine Gael Party who also did so, not least General Mulcahy and nobody will accuse him of being a pacific man and keeping to his own fireside. The reason Irish voices back in the twenties advocated neutrality was that they had the recent example under their eyes of the First World War when millions and millions of people were fed like cannon-fodder into the trenches and died in seas of mud for no discernible ideological reason on either side.
Many thousands of Irish people of both colours, orange and green, left their bones in Flanders and in northern France and the Labour Party's military wing in those days, the Citizen Army, paraded under a banner saying, "We fight for neither King nor Kaiser". I believe had I been around, I would have cheerfully stood beneath such a banner because from the point of view of the Irish there was nothing to choose between King and Kaiser but that does not mean that there is never going to be anything to choose between two sides confronting each other.
On the last occasion on which I spoke here I had the great privilege of not only having Deputy Higgins listening to me but also Deputy Mac Giolla and I asked them the following question: "Are you or are you not in favour of our having been neutral in the conflict of 1939 to 1945?" That seems to be an unanswerable dilemma in which to place people who prate about our traditional policy of neutrality. If they support, retrospectively, the policy of neutrality in 1939-45, if they are willing to say the State was right to stay out of the Second World War, then the ladies and gentlemen over on the left have no business to be going on about fascism because what they say amounts to this — if they had been in a position to influence events 40 years ago they would not have lifted one finger to push down fascism. Yet they prate about it now when the world has been made safe for them to do so by the sacrifice of others.
It was the Labour movement that opposed fascism in 1936.
We heard that before from the Deputy. If, on the other hand, they were honest enough to admit they would have been willing to join that particular conflict and that fascism was something unique, it would seem to be a very handy scapegoat for everybody. It is a sort of agreed point of reference, it is the parading of wickedness, no question of its unexampled wickedness but it is not the only wicked thing in the world. If they had been willing to say "Very well, we would have made an exception in favour of fighting against fascism and we would have lifted a finger against that as many people in their tradition fought against Franco in Spain" then they would be saying — and this, of course, is the truth — the issue of neutrality is not one you can permanently decide as a matter of standing State policy. It requires to be decided like any other question on which a man or a group of people have to decide, namely, in the conditions of the time and in response to the challenges of the time.
When I put up that dilemma to them, I am sorry to say that Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy Higgins departed from the courtesy which the House had shown them when they were speaking and they both attempted to shout me down. They turned scarlet with indignation, the two of them were like a pair of turkeys gobbling at me with fury that I had put them in this unanswerable dilemma. They did not want to say they would have fought fascism and they could not say they would not have fought it. That is the plain fact of the matter. Somebody who is in favour of and advocates what they call a traditional policy of neutrality must take up a position about that episode, the only time since the foundation of this State when it mattered a damn to anybody what this State did and whether we fought or stayed on the sideline.
I want to refer to Anglo-Irish relations. They have been very much in the headlines during the past few days and I do not want to say anything in my small role here which would make things any worse. Having, in a couple of different media, tried to defend this State against the indignation which the British always exhibit when anything goes wrong here or whenever anything here works in any way different from the way it worked in the days when there was a British Executive sitting in Dublin Castle, I said it is a separate State, it runs things in its own way and there probably is a different ethos and a different manner of doing things, even in the courts, from what the English are used to in their country. But it is not fair — and I must say this in order to redress the balance — to look on the British as being in the grip of some quite out-of-place post-colonial feeling of exasperation towards us.
It is not altogether the case that they feel this country should jump to their bidding or do what they expect of it simply because they do not recognise this as an independent country. There is also another element in it, and in fairness to the British I think I have to say this. They are not willing, no matter how many tricolours we fly or how we parade our independence, to entirely regard us as foreigners. That can be an amiable feeling in them and is not in any way sinister, even though it causes irritation here. Let me say again, to try to do them justice and to lower the temperature in so far as a speech from a backbencher can do so, that they show in their practice, not just in words, that they do not regard us entirely as foreigners. Their diplomatic missions in the many countries in the world in which we have no representation are automatically and regularly, as a matter of course, at the disposal of Irish citizens who are not within reach of one of our missions. They have always permitted citizens of the Irish Republic, uniquely among foreign nationals, to exercise the vote in their parliamentary elections. This ought to be mentioned because whenever a unit of the British air force flies over Hackballscross or somewhere like that hoping to spot some terrorist activity, there are wild cries from the guff Republicans over there in the House about infringements of our air space and our national sovereignty. These people forget that our air sea rescue service, at any rate to the extent that it is not possible to provide such a service with the limited resources of the Irish Air Corps, are effectively provided by the British for nothing. I asked a question about this a few months ago and quite accidentally — I had no collusion with him of any kind — my friend, Deputy Enda Kenny, also asked a question on this. It emerged from the answer to these questions that in the past five years — I am giving the House very rough figures — British helicopters and other forms of aircraft flew rescue missions over Irish territory no fewer than 300 times for nothing. No charge was accepted for that humanitarian assistance.
I do not grovel with bogus gratitude towards another state which does for me what I certainly would do for it if the conditions were reversed, but I think these are practical forms of neighbourliness that it is unseemly for us to lose sight of. It would be well for us to keep them in our minds in trying to understand the British attitude towards this country, which exasperates me fully as much as it does other ladies and gentlemen in this House. I know that country quite well and, annoying though it may be to say it, they regard us as something special and not in the way they regard other foreigners. I believe many of them genuinely feel hurt and offended when they get from this country treatment which to them is incomprehensible. I say that merely to try to redress the balance because we frequently say too much about one another in the opposite sense.
I want to refer to human rights elsewhere. I know the first thing I am going to say will not please my friends on the far Left. I do not understand why South Africa should be a unique pariah in the world. I say that although it is obviously a regime that is detestable. I would not wish to live there and I would solemnly warn anyone belonging to me who lived there to get out of it. If I did live there I would try to make sure that at least my children left and lived somewhere else. I do not think they are going to be running that kind of a state in ten or 20 years time — one cannot put a date on it but it cannot go on the way it is at present. I accept all that but I do not understand why that makes it a unique pariah among the nations of the world.
The world is full of detestable regimes, with some of whom we have diplomatic relations. So far as I can see Iraq and Iran are murdering each others young men by the hundreds for nothing. Both of these countries have detestable autocracies. They do not know what the rule of law is all about. One can disappear into a prison there and never be heard of again just because of one's faith. I do not see any difference between one's faith and one's colour. It is true that one cannot change one's colour but ought I change my faith or opinions in order to be acceptable to the Government? If we are going to treat countries as pariahs, then let us have a single rule for them all. I suspect — and I am sorry to have to say this because I do not want to upset friends on the other benches — the reason South Africa has been souped up into a unique pariah in the world is because of its wealth and strategic position.
That is not so.
If it was an agricultural country in the middle of Central Africa with no Simonstown naval base, with no command over the waters between the African continent and Antarctica there would not be half the fuss about it. It is because of its strategic necessity — and I am not saying people over there believe it, and it may not even have occured to them — that some forces in the world want South Africa to be destabilised and that this unique campaign against that country, detestable though its regime is, is mounted and maintained.
That is not the main reason.
I accept that it may not be what Deputy Higgins wants, I accept that without any reservation whatever. However, I believe that does explain it, because it is the only thing which can explain the unique position in which that country, above all the other detestable regimes in the world ——
The Deputy might now bring his remarks to a close.
The last thing I want to say — and this will, I hope, make peace with my friends over here because it seems far nearer to what they like to hear — is that the improvements, or apparent improvements, in human rights conditions which appear to be on the way or to be in sight in the Soviet Union, while they still fall a very far distance short of satisfying a western European, but we are very privileged here, must be welcomed by fairminded people. I was not happy at the sight of President Reagan lecturing Mr. Gorbachev so continually on the subject. He has to recognise that people must make a start somewhere and that there is a deadweight of 70 years — not 70, but 700 years — of brutal autocracy to be overcome. That cannot be done overnight. I am willing to assume that Mr. Gorbachev does mean well and will do his best to improve matters.
Also, the Americans ought not to be let go without our gently telling them that there are aspects of their policy which we here, and certainly I, would regard as intolerable. One that I shall mention is the regime which the various American States are allowed to maintain, almost all of them, in regard to the infliction of the death penalty. I consider that to sentence a man to death in 1979 or 1980 — it may be that he has been convicted beyond doubt of some appalling brutal multiple murder — and allow him to sit for six or seven years in a death cell when appeal after appeal is going on and perhaps even the law may have changed in the meantime and then to drag him out and put him to death with a gas capsule, or the electric chair, or invite in a corps of volunteer snipers to shoot him to death behind a curtain, is an inhuman and disgusting display. When the United States — and I mean the states individually because they are all individually competent in this matter, not the union — put that particular part of their house in order, I shall listen with more patience to their appeals with regard to human rights in the rest of the world.
An tAire, chun deireadh a chur leis an díospóireacht.
Is mian liom ar dtús, ar son an Aire, mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht an-tábhachtach seo faoi Ghnóthaí Eachtracha. Bhí mé ag éisteacht leis an díospóireacht mé féin agus bhain mé sochar as an méid a dúradh.
First, I should like to take up the matter of Brian Keenan, as a fellow Ulsterman. The Government have made strenuous and extensive efforts with all the parties in the Middle East that might be in a position to help so that we could get some line on the kidnapping of Brian Keenan and make some effort to have him released. This is true also of the Opposition, Deputy Barry and members of the other parties of this House. The Government have maintained contact with other countries that are in the same unfortunate position as we are, in having hostages in Lebanon.
The Government have also seen to it that the hostages who have been released have been contacted, to get information as up-to-date as possible on the position. The Taoiseach himself discussed this matter with the Foreign Minister of Iran recently and the conversation was a very friendly and positive one, in the Taoiseach's own words. Actual hard information on Mr. Keenan's whereabouts, unfortunately, is not available. On behalf of the Minister and of the Government I want to assure the House that we will continue to make all efforts to establish Mr. Keenan's whereabouts and to secure his safe release as soon as possible.
Deputy Kennedy spoke about our position on disarmament and arms control. She acknowledged that the position of Ireland on these issues was set out comprehensively very recently by the Taoiseach in New York. Indeed, Deputy De Rossa paid tribute to the substance of the Taoiseach's speech also when making his contribution. I have heard from ambassadors from the eastern part of Europe that they were very impressed by what the Taoiseach had to say. Deputy Kennedy agreed with this position, which is entirely premised on the maintenance of our policy of military neutrality. This policy was endorsed by the people in a referendum, during which the issue was very thoroughly discussed only last year. It was one of the areas that was highlighted during the course of that campaign.
With regard to emigration, in our election programme we undertook to enter into a major initiative on behalf of young people who, unfortunately, have to emigrate. We have delivered on that commitment. In visits to the United States the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and other Ministers have raised the issue with key legislative and administrative officials. We know, as does the House, that substantial progress towards legislative reform in the United States is under way. We are told that there are difficulties because of the presidential election, etc., in getting the legislation through the House of Representatives, but we are hopeful that it will be enacted before the end of the year, to provide permanent benefit for our citizens.
In the area of advisory and welfare services, substantial progress also has been made. The Minister of State in his speech referred to this area. All our consulates have been given explicit instructions to cater for our emigrants. New staff and resources have been allocated. Also, we have brought together the main groups working in the immigration area, to ensure that their activities are co-ordinated and the benefit of wide and lengthy experience made use of. We have a network of services — the Government are confident that this is so — to help our young people. There has been a very positive response from them.
With regard to Deputy Barry's contribution on the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, there has been a full use of this conference. Specifically with regard to the frequency of the meetings of that conference, there is no appreciable difference between the record of the present Government and that of the previous one. Since the Government took office there have been ten meetings of the conference, seven ordinary meetings, including today's, and three special meetings. In the period November 1985 to March 1987, which is considerably more than a year, the previous Government took part in nine meetings of the conference, seven ordinary and two special.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
That is a very serious comment. I am giving the facts and the Deputy can check them.
I take it that in respect of the word "lies", Deputy Barry was concentrating more on statistics.
The quotation is pretty well known.
In response to Deputy Barry's concern regarding the administration of justice in Northern Ireland, I should refer him to the communiqué issued after the Anglo-Irish conference meeting on 25 March which agreed to give a new impetus to the work of bringing forward special measures to improve relations between the security forces and the community in Northern Ireland and to build confidence in the system of justice. The conference decided that officials of the two Governments should draw up a new programme of work on these issues.
Deputy Barry will note when he reads the communiqué of today's conference that: "The Ministers also reviewed a number of issues relating to confidence in the administration of justice and took note of the work in hand."
I am glad to hear that.
Deputy Higgins, with regard to South Africa, can be assured that the policy of Ireland and of the Twelve with regard to South Africa is regularly reviewed in the light of developments in that country. The Government and all our partners in the Twelve are gravely concerned at the trend of developments of South African Government policy and will, if present trends continue, look again at their policy. In that connection, the Government continue to urge the addition of coal — this was mentioned, of course, in the debate — to the restrictive measures of the Twelve. Deputy Kennedy said that there was a PLO office in Dublin almost akin to an embassy; that is not so. Far from having any PLO embassy here, there is not even a PLO office in Dublin. Our relations with Libya are no different from those of any other western European country, apart from the United Kingdom. The Government have at all times made their position clear. We shall not condone any assistance from anywhere to violent organisations here. If it becomes clear that any State is engaged in such assistance the Government will draw the appropriate conclusions.
With regard to diplomatic representation, Deputy Kennedy suggested the amalgamation of our mission to the EC with our embassy in Belgium. She also suggested the amalgamation of our embassy in Italy and in the Holy See, the amalgamation of our embassy in Luxembourg with our representation to the Council of Europe. The last is already the case. Our ambassador to Luzembourg is also our permanent representative to the Council of Europe. In regard to the other two, I should point out that resident diplomatic relations are established by agreement between the States concerned. Not all States are willing to accept diplomatic representation along the lines suggested by the Deputy.
We need separate representations for the institutions of the Community to deal with the complex issues arising there. We need representation to the Belgian State to conduct our relations and to protect our interests in that country because it is a founder member and an influential one of the European Community. Our officials in Europe have to work very hard indeed and if they were members of trade unions they would hardly agree to the long hours and tough schedules which operate there.
As to the amalgamation of our embassies in Italy and the Holy See it was suggested that Deputy Kennedy's party intended to remove the Deity from the Constitution and now they are trying to abolish our representation to the Vatican——
I said that the suggestion had been put by the Department of Finance to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
That makes it even worse because I never burned any incense in front of Mammon and it is not one of my favourite gods.
Deputies have spoken about the reduction in Ireland's overseas development assistance this year. We very much regret that, for budgetary reasons, the Government have been forced to reduce the level of that assistance. Nonetheless, we have maintained the full range of programmes and the House will be glad to know that. Indeed, some of my subheads were cut by 70 per cent or 80 per cent. Under the bilateral aid programme we are continuing to meet all our commitments, including those to our main partner countries, Tanzania, Lesotho, Zambia and the Sudan. I assure Deputies that the Government are aware of — and sympathetic towards — the needs of developing countries and remain committed to the maintenance and expansion of our aid programme when economic circumstances permit.
In regard to the specific matter of milk powder for Nicaragua, the allocation of Irish food aid is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Food and we will pass on the content of the contributions——
They have been passed on before.
They are tied up with the EC.
In regard to a foreign policy committee, notwithstanding what was said — and the remarks have been noted — the Houses of the Oireachtas have ample opportunities to consider foreign policy issues and do so. Some Deputies have acknowledged this. This debate, of course, is the major one on international relations but we also have other opportunities to discuss the matter.
There have been criticisms about the amount of time allocated to the Estimates debate. This has always been a difficult issue in regard to all Estimates. I remember a time when many Estimates were passed without debate at the end of the year. I remember seeing Conor Cruise O'Brien, as Minister, dealing with five or six Departments in about ten minutes, with a considerable flurry of papers from the bull pen beside me. The House will agree that it is better to have three hours available for each Estimate instead of having them rushed through in an unseemly manner. The late Vivion de Valera used to complain annually about the lack of time allotted to discussing the Estimates but, thankfully, that has now been changed.
We have had regular discussions on the European Community issues on the basis of the twice yearly reports on developments in the European Community either here or in Seanad Éireann, and the Taoiseach's report on European Councils. There have been motions on Anglo-Irish affairs, some of which were not totally acceptable to Deputy Kelly. We have also had the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities, the Cecchini report on which there was a full debate and there have also been a number of Adjournment debates.
Deputy Kelly said that neither Iraq nor Iran had any conception of the rule of law. However, both of them maintain that they are adhering to the rule of law - Muslim law - and they simply have different interpretations of it in regard to their frontiers. In regard to his remarks about the Soviet initiatives, glasnost and perestroika and the movement in the Soviet Union, I am sure the House agrees that this is desirable in relation to foreign affairs. Níl a thuilleadh le rá agam ach mo bhúiochas a ghabháil arís leis na Comhaltaí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht.
